Mishnah Keritot 5:8-6:1

Sugya Map

• Issue: The intricate halakhic liability for Chatat (sin offering) and Asham Talui (provisional guilt offering) when confronted with an eating of uncertain composition, specifically a piece of cheilev (forbidden fat) and a piece of cheilev notar (forbidden fat that is also leftover sacrificial meat). A critical sub-issue is the permissibility and nature of joint or conditional offerings (shutafut) for chataot and ashamot.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Determining the number of chataot required when multiple prohibited items are consumed, especially if in sequence or with intervening knowledge (yediyah beinatayim).
  • The application of Asham Talui for uncertain karet offenses (here, notar).
  • Whether me'ilah (misuse of consecrated property) liability always accompanies the consumption of notar.
  • The conceptual validity of two individuals bringing a single korban chatat or asham for their respective, possibly uncertain, transgressions.
• Primary Sources: Mishnah Keritot 5:8 (Sefaria, corresponding to Keritot 5:4 in standard editions); Gemara Keritot 13b.

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Keritot 5:8 (Sefaria): "חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב נותר אכל את אחת מהן ואין ידוע אי זו מהן אכל מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי. אכל את השנייה מביא שלש חטאות. אכל אחד את הראשונה ובא אחר ואכל את השנייה, זה מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי וזה מביא חטאת ואשם תלוי. רבי שמעון אומר, זה חטאת וזה חטאת, ושניהם מביאים חטאת אחת. רבי יוסי אומר, כל חטאת שהיא באה על חטא אין שנים מביאין אותה."

• Dikduk/Leshon nuance:
  • "חתיכה של חלב וחתיכה של חלב נותר" (a piece of forbidden fat and a piece of forbidden fat that is notar): The Mishnah explicitly states cheilev notar, indicating a dual prohibition where the notar status applies to an already forbidden substance. This is key to understanding the issur mosif principle. Yachin notes that notar itself is a karet offense. Yachin on Mishnah Keritot 5:40:1.
  • "מביא שלש חטאות" (brings three sin offerings): This phrase, particularly the number "three," is a magnet for exegetical inquiry. As we shall see, it implicitly conveys a crucial detail regarding yediyah beinatayim (intervening knowledge) that is not explicitly stated.
  • "אין שנים מביאין אותה" (two do not bring it): R' Yosei's categorical rejection of joint offerings for a chatat she'ba'ah al chet (sin offering brought for a definite sin) presents a fundamental theological and halakhic stance on the nature of atonement.

Readings

Rambam: Issur Mosif and Shaveh Perutah

Rambam, in his commentary on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1 (Sefaria), offers critical insights into the Mishnah's terse pronouncements. His primary chiddush (novel interpretation) concerns the case of consuming the second piece, which incurs "שלש חטאות" (three sin offerings). He clarifies that this liability for three chataot only arises "על מנת שתהא ידיעה בינתיים" (on condition that there was an intervening knowledge) between the eating of the first and second pieces. Rambam explains that if both pieces were consumed "בבהעלם אחת" (in a single unwitting act), the individual would only be liable for two chataot. Rambam on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1. This hinges on the principle of issur mosif (an additional prohibition): the prohibition of notar applies on top of the prohibition of cheilev, rather than nullifying it. Thus, cheilev notar constitutes two distinct prohibitive elements for which one might be liable (Keritot 13b).

Furthermore, Rambam addresses the conspicuous absence of an Asham Me'ilah (guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property) in the Mishnah's "three chataot" scenario, even though notar is kodshim (sacred property). He posits that "הנותר על הרוב אין חתיכה ממנו שוה פרוטה מפני שהוא נפסד ואין מחייבין מעילה אלא למי שנהנה שוה פרוטה" (most notar is not worth a perutah because it spoils, and me'ilah is only incurred by one who benefits by the value of a perutah). Rambam on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1. This practical consideration, often true for leftover sacrificial meat, circumvents the me'ilah obligation.

Finally, Rambam summarily dismisses R' Yosei's position regarding joint chataot, stating that R' Yosei's words "נדחים" (are rejected), and even for a mechusar kapparah (one who requires atonement), "אין שנים מביאים חטאת בשותפות" (two do not bring a sin offering in partnership). Rambam on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1. This reflects a broader halakhic consensus against joint definite chataot.

Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger: Reconciling R' Shimon's Principles

Tosafot Rabbi Akiva Eiger (T.R.A.E.) on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1 (Sefaria) engages with a potential internal contradiction in R' Shimon's views across sugyot. The Mishnah here presents R' Shimon allowing two individuals to bring "חטאת אחת" (one sin offering) conditionally for a safek (uncertain) notar offense. T.R.A.E. immediately flags this with "לא ידעתי סרך קושיא דהא בשבועות" (I do not know the trace of a difficulty, for in Shevuot...). This refers to Masechet Shevuot (Shevuot 23a), where R' Shimon is understood to uphold the principle of ein kolel (not combining prohibitions), which would seemingly preclude a joint offering.

T.R.A.E. suggests that the Gemara in Shevuot offers various okimtot (interpretations) for R' Shimon's position, such as dealing with chatzi shiur (half measures). However, the crux of his chiddush lies in proposing that R' Yosei (in Shevuot) might interpret R' Shimon as distinguishing between an issur haba al yedei atzmo (a prohibition that comes about through one's own action) and an issur haba me'eileiv (a prohibition that comes about automatically or independently). T.R.A.E. on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1. For the latter, such as notar which is forbidden due to time, R' Shimon might allow kolel (combining) or joint offerings, even if he generally maintains ein kolel for self-induced prohibitions. This sophisticated analysis attempts to harmonize R' Shimon's seemingly disparate rulings by identifying a nuanced underlying principle.

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael: The Intimacy of Atonement

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1-5 (Sefaria) offers a conceptual lens on R' Yosei's staunch opposition to joint chataot. It reiterates that the Mishnah's "שלש חטאות" likely implies multiple he'elemot (unwitting acts), aligning with Rambam. However, its unique chiddush is in plumbing the depths of R' Yosei's reasoning.

Mishnat Eretz Yisrael explains that "קרבן שבא על חטא, כלומר קרבן ודאי, בא על חטא מוגדר. הקרבן מהווה כפרה אישית... מבחינה דתית-מחשבתית יש כאן מעין מרובע אינטימי: האדם, החטא, הקרבן והכפרה" (an offering that comes for a sin, meaning a definite offering, comes for a defined sin. The offering constitutes personal atonement... from a religious-philosophical perspective, there is an intimate quadrangle here: the person, the sin, the offering, and the atonement). Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1-5. This "intimate quadrangle" cannot be sustained on the basis of hatnayah (conditionality) or shutafut (partnership). Atonement requires "הסכמה אישית, מעין מהפכה פנימית סוחפת" (personal agreement, a kind of sweeping internal revolution). Therefore, R' Yosei rejects any arrangement that dilutes this personal connection.

The commentary further points to a Tosefta (Keritot 3:5) where R' Shimon and R' Yosei might agree on shutafut for Asham Talui, suggesting a crucial distinction: the Asham Talui, being for safek, lacks the same "intimate quadrangle" requirement as a definite chatat. This provides a potential framework for reconciling their views in different contexts.

Friction

The "Three Sin Offerings" Conundrum

The most potent kushya (difficulty) arising from this Mishnah is the statement "אכל את השנייה מביא שלש חטאות" (If he then ate the second piece, he brings three sin offerings). Keritot 5:8 (Sefaria). Superficially, if one eats a piece of cheilev and then a piece of cheilev notar, he has committed two cheilev offenses and one notar offense. Given the principle of issur mosif (Keritot 13b), where notar adds to cheilev, this would typically result in one chatat for the first cheilev and one chatat for the notar (which includes the cheilev aspect) if both were eaten in a single he'elem (unwitting act). Why then "three chataot"? This seems to contradict the Gemara's discussion (Keritot 13b) which explains that for multiple eatings of the same issur in one he'elem, only one chatat is brought.

The Best Terutz

The terutz (resolution) is found explicitly in the Gemara (Keritot 13b) and elaborated upon by Rishonim such as Rambam. The Gemara explains that the Mishnah's "שלש חטאות" implies a scenario of "שתי ידיעות" (two instances of knowledge/awareness) — meaning, there was yediyah beinatayim (intervening knowledge) between the eating of the first and second pieces.

Specifically, the Gemara states: "ההיא דקתני ג' חטאות – דהוה ליה שתי ידיעות" (That which it teaches three sin offerings – it implies there were two instances of knowledge). Keritot 13b. This means that after eating the first piece (e.g., cheilev), the person became aware, however briefly, that he had eaten something forbidden. Then, in a subsequent he'elem, he ate the second piece (cheilev notar). This sequence breaks the single unwitting act into multiple ones, each triggering a potential chatat.

Therefore, the breakdown is as follows:

1. First eating (e.g., cheilev): Brings one Chatat.
2. Intervening knowledge: This "resets" the he'elem.
3. Second eating (cheilev notar): This incurs two liabilities: one for the cheilev component and one for the notar component, as issur notar chal al issur cheilev (the prohibition of notar applies to the prohibition of cheilev) (Keritot 13b). Each distinct issur in a new he'elem can generate a chatat. This results in a second Chatat for the cheilev and a third Chatat for the notar.

Rambam articulates this precisely: "ומה שאמר ג"כ חייב ג' חטאות על מנת שתהא ידיעה בינתיים אבל אם אכל שניהם יחד בהעלם אחת חייב ב' חטאות" (And what it also says, he is liable for three sin offerings, on condition that there was an intervening knowledge; but if he ate both of them together in one unwitting act, he is liable for two sin offerings). Rambam on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1. Yachin further clarifies that without yediyah beinatayim, "אינו מביא על ב' אכילות החלב רק חטאת א'" (he would only bring one sin offering for the two eatings of fat). Yachin on Mishnah Keritot 5:42:1. The Mishnah's seemingly concise phrasing thus encapsulates a complex halakhic scenario.

Intertext

Shevuot 23a: The Scope of Joint Offerings

The dispute between R' Shimon and R' Yosei regarding the permissibility of two individuals bringing a single korban for a shared, uncertain transgression finds a profound parallel in Masechet Shevuot 23a. There, the Mishnah discusses a scenario where two individuals eat from two pieces, one neveilah (carrion, forbidden) and one kosher, and each is uncertain which piece he ate. R' Shimon permits them to bring one chatat conditionally, stating, "זה חטאת וזה חטאת, שניהם מביאין חטאת אחת" (this one brings a sin offering and that one brings a sin offering, and both of them bring one sin offering). Shevuot 23a. R' Yosei, however, maintains his consistent position: "כל חטאת שהיא באה על חטא אין שנים מביאין אותה" (any sin offering that comes for a sin, two do not bring it). Shevuot 23a.

The sugya in Shevuot delves into the nuances of shutafut (partnership) in korbanot, particularly for chataot which are intrinsically personal. The Tosefta (Keritot 3:5), as cited by Mishnat Eretz Yisrael on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1-5, suggests a potential agreement between R' Shimon and R' Yosei concerning Asham Talui (shutafut for safek). This implies that their fundamental disagreement might be specific to definite chataot, where the atonement is "intimate" and cannot be diluted by joint ownership or conditionality.

Keritot 3:4: The Me'ilah Nexus

The discussion of cheilev notar naturally draws a connection to Mishnah Keritot 3:4, which addresses the liability for me'ilah (misuse of consecrated property) when one benefits from kodshim (sacred property) without authorization. That Mishnah states that one who eats notar is liable for both a chatat (for the notar prohibition) and an Asham Me'ilah (for misusing sacred property). Keritot 3:4.

The present Mishnah (5:8), in its "three chataot" scenario, conspicuously omits the Asham Me'ilah. This omission is a point of contention and explanation for the Rishonim. As noted by Rambam (Keritot 5:8:1) and Yachin (Keritot 5:42:1), this is because notar often spoils and becomes "אין שוה פרוטה" (not worth a perutah), the minimal value for me'ilah liability. The Gemara (Keritot 13b) explicitly makes this distinction, contrasting notar from behemah gasa (large animal), which might retain its value, with notar from behemah dakka (small animal) or in hot climates, which spoils. Ikar Tosafot Yom Tov on Mishnah Keritot 5:8:1. This intertextual comparison highlights the precise conditions under which me'ilah applies, even when another prohibition (like notar) is present.

Psak/Practice

In practical halakha, the debate between R' Shimon and R' Yosei regarding joint korbanot for definite sins generally follows R' Yosei's stringent view. The Rambam (Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 1:12) rules that "אין שני שותפין מביאין קרבן אחד על חטא אחד" (two partners do not bring one offering for one sin), which is the standard position. This reflects the deeply personal nature of a chatat as an atonement for an individual's transgression.

However, the specific context of Asham Talui (provisional guilt offering) presents nuances. While Asham Talui is no longer brought in practice today due to the absence of the Temple, its conceptual framework is significant. The Tosefta cited by Mishnat Eretz Yisrael suggests a potential leniency for Asham Talui shutafut, perhaps because its purpose is to address safek karet rather than a definite sin, thus making the "intimate quadrangle" less absolute. This distinction underscores a meta-halakhic heuristic: the nature of the korban (definite vs. provisional) influences the applicability of partnership.

Takeaway

This sugya masterfully unpacks the layers of liability for korbanot, demonstrating how seemingly simple Mishnayot conceal complex legal and theological principles regarding intervening knowledge, combined prohibitions, and the profoundly personal essence of atonement. The debate on joint offerings reveals a fundamental tension between collective action and individual responsibility in the realm of kapparah.